Random Factoid #525

4 01 2011

Have you heard the one about Matt Damon and the abs double?  It sounds like a great joke to use at a bar.  Here’s the story from Cinematical:

“During the end credits of ‘True Grit’, [Scott] Feinberg noticed a credit given to a Buster Coen for being Matt Damon’s Abs Double.

Seems strange since you don’t see Matt Damon’s abs in the film, especially because they’re covered up in layers of Texas Ranger clothing, and so during a post-screening Q&A Feinberg asked Damon what was up with the credit. Turns out Ethan Coen’s 15-year-old son Buster had helped out on the film serving as an assistant to the script supervisor, but didn’t want to be known as that in the credits. When asked what he wanted his credit to be, the kid indicated that he wanted to be known as Matt Damon’s Abs Double.”

What an awesome way to credit yourself in a movie.  I want to find Buster and give him a pat on the back and a handshake.

This story led me to think, of course, how would I credit myself in a movie if I were ever to have some small role in the making of one.  I’d clearly have to one-up Buster.  “Official movie blogger,” perhaps?  Any other ideas?  I’m running pretty slim today…


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: Inside Job

24 11 2010

I see a lot of movies, and I don’t exactly try to hide it.  People often ask me, “Have you seen this movie?”  I breathe and most often reply, “Yes, I have.”  Then I brace myself and wait for the inevitable follow-up question: “How was it?”

I have a nice reservoir of descriptors that I’m ready to whip out at a moment’s notice, but I usually start with the simple good.  If a movie is particularly noteworthy, I might add very in front.  If people are particularly curious, they might probe for more, asking “Really?”  At this point, I’ll take the time to more thoroughly explain my thoughts, pointing out a certain performance or technical aspect I found to be exemplary.  It’s also at this point when I whip out more sophisticated adjectives, like dazzling, flooring, and mind-blowing.

With “Inside Job,” I can skip over good and go straight to the vocabulary that no movies ever allow me to use.  It was infuriating, an outraging movie experience that left me reeling and in total shock.  How often does a movie come along that merits the use of those words?

Given that it took a $20 trillion global meltdown to bring me such sentiments, I’d rather have this be the only time I have to feel similarly.  But we have to face the facts: it happened, and documentarian Charles Ferguson goes all the way back to the era of Alan Greenspan to show how the financial crisis began.  He then takes us through the next twenty years, stopping along the way to show all the ways that the recession could have been prevented.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Oscar Moment: “True Grit”

12 11 2010

Unlike “The Fighter,” which seems Academy-appealing on premise, “True Grit” is appealing on pedigree.  It comes courtesy of the Coen Brothers, who each have three statues thanks to their work producing, writing, and directing “No Country for Old Men” in 2007 and another for writing “Fargo” in 1996.  Including the nominations they have received for editing under the alias Roderick Jaynes, Joel and Ethan Coen have each received a whopping TEN Oscar nominations.

Beyond just their own history, the Coen Brothers have roped in some phenomenal talent to make this look like one heck of an Oscar contender on paper.  “True Grit” is an adaptation of the novel by Charles Portis, NOT a remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne.  According to sources, the two are very different, and those expecting a remake are in store for something entirely different.  However, John Wayne’s leading turn as Rooster Cogburn won him an Academy Award for Best Actor, so keeping in the same vain wouldn’t be such a bad thing for Jeff Bridges.

Bridges is hot off his Best Actor win for “Crazy Heart” last year and looks to be in striking range of a second trophy.  The “too soon” political argument will surely be a factor, but it’s not a novel concept for an actor to be nominated the year after they win.  It happened twice over the past decade with Russell Crowe nominated in 2001 for “A Beautiful Mind” after winning for “Gladiator” and Penelope Cruz nominated in 2009 for “Nine” after winning for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”  Then, of course, there’s the once in a lifetime case of Tom Hanks, who won back-to-back Best Actor statues for “Philadelphia” and then “Forrest Gump” in 1993 and 1994.  The only other actor to pull this off was Spencer Tracy back in the 1930s.  While I think Bridges has the respect to achieve this massive distinction, I doubt the politics of Academy voting nowadays will allow it.

Bridges isn’t the only threat the movie has in the acting categories.  Two-time nominee Matt Damon looks to make an entry into the Best Supporting Actor category, as does prior nominee Josh Brolin.  The race still has no clear frontrunner (hard to believe), and either of them with enough buzz when the movie screens around Thanksgiving could lead to a major shake-up.

My money is on Damon, the more respected actor in the eyes of the Academy.  He was nominated just last year for “Invictus” and has history with the Oscars dating all the way back to 1997 when he won Best Original Screenplay with pal Ben Affleck for “Good Will Hunting” and also received a Best Actor nomination.  2010 has been yet another banner year for Damon, starring in Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” and narrating Charles Ferguson’s “Inside Job.”  He has also been recognized as a great humanitarian and just a general class act.  It’s hard to judge his chances without anyone having seen the movie, but I think Damon could easily win the whole thing.

Brolin, on the other hand, has only recently emerged as an actor to be reckoned with thanks to roles in “Milk,” which earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, and “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen Brothers’ Best Picture winner which earned him a SAG Award for Best Ensemble.  He has a more volatile personality, and this could harm him.  In “True Grit,” he plays the outlaw Tom Chaney, another villainous role that he has gained so much notoriety playing.  Unlike the Best Supporting Actress category where double nominees from the same film are common (see the Oscar Moment on “The Fighter” for statistics), the feat hasn’t been accomplished in Best Supporting Actor since 1991 when Harvey Keitel and Ben Kingsley were both nominated for “Bugsy.”  So if I had to pick one of the two “True Grit” supporting men, I take Damon at the moment.

Then there’s also the easy Oscar nominations that the movie will pick up since is this is a Coen Brothers movie that happens to take place in the 1880s Wild West.  Best Cinematography, Production Design, Costume Design and Film Editing are certainties.  The movie could bomb and those three nominations would still be in the bag.  Best Adapted Screenplay should be an easy nomination to net given that they have been nominees four times in the category and winners twice.  Best Director will be interesting for the same reasons that it will be interesting for Danny Boyle, but if “True Grit” is a huge hit, there’s no way the Coen Brothers won’t come along for the ride here.

But perhaps the movie’s biggest wild card is the spunky teenaged heroine Mattie Ross, played by newcome Hailee Steinfeld.  She will be a more central figure in the 2010 version of “True Grit” since the novel focused more on her perspective. Still, Steinfeld will likely be campaigned for Best Supporting Actress where the field is thin and the category is more hospitable territory for young actresses.  In the past decade, 13-year-old Saiorse Ronan and 10-year-old Abigail Breslin have been nominees for “Atonement” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” respectively.  The category has also seen pint-sized winners like Tatum O’Neal for “Paper Moon” at the age of 10 and Anna Paquin for “The Piano” at the age of 11.

Steinfeld is in good company, but we have nothing other than a trailer and the confidence of the Coen Brothers to indicate whether or not she has the capability to execute this role.  Their word is good, as most actors who have worked with the duo state that they are perfectionists obsessed with precision.  All signs point to this being an inspired casting, and it won’t be hard for Steinfeld to make it a pretty meager Best Supporting Actress category this year.  But still, like everything else about “True Grit,” we still have to wait and see the critical reaction – just to make sure.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Bridges), Best Supporting Actor (Damon), Best Supporting Actress (Steinfeld), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, Best Film Editing

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Brolin), Best Original Score


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

REVIEW: Hereafter

4 11 2010

It’s interesting to see the growth of the “hyperlink cinema” filmmaking style over the past decade.  In an age where we often feel so isolated and alone, living out just our own story, these movies that manage to intertwine multiple apparently unrelated storylines fill us with a sense that we actually are connected with everyone in the world around us.

The latest entry in this style comes from writer Peter Morgan (“Frost/Nixon”) and director Clint Eastwood, “Hereafter,” a musing on the nature of life and death in modern times.  Eastwood, who has made a name directing gritty movies, would seem to be the last person to take on such a project.  Yet at 80, his age and experience give the movie an overarching sense of peace and placidity.

In one sense, “Hereafter” is more focused than more sprawling movies like “Crash” and “Traffic,” which attempt to weave together what feels like dozens of characters in the course of two hours.  Morgan gets us well acquainted with three principal figures spread across three countries.

George Lonengan, played with composure by Matt Damon, has the ability to talk to the departed but struggles to maintain control over their intrusion into the way he lives his life.  There’s the age-old “gift vs. curse” dialectic haunting him as well, and it has forced him to resign himself to factory labor in San Francisco.

Marie, a subtly affecting Cecile de France, makes contact with the hereafter when she nearly drowns in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami.  Her experience sticks with her when she goes back to her job as a news anchor in Paris, and it’s obvious to everyone around her that she has something more than mere survivor’s guilt.  Trying to move on but unable to let go of her experience, her views of what awaits us after death lock her into a “faith vs. reason” debate that has accompanied countless discussions of heaven.

In London, a touching and hard-hitting story of mourning arises after death separates Jason and Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren), leaving the latter feeling left behind and alone.  With a mother addicted to drugs, he feels he has nowhere to turn to but the supernatural.  Whether Marcus seeks companionship or closure is left much to the audience’s imagination, but no matter what the goal is, it’s an emotional journey.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Oscar Moment: “Inside Job”

8 10 2010

There are many categories on my Oscar ballot that I always call a toss-up, such as the short films.  However, one such category regrettably includes the Best Documentary Feature, which I have, in the past, had little interest in.  These movies tackle important current events or shine new perspectives on old ones, and as I’ve become more educated, these have become more intriguing to me.

So in 2010, I’ve vowed to take an active interest in handicapping the Best Documentary Feature race, and it starts today with this Oscar Moment.  First on tap is Charles Ferguson’s “Inside Job,” the documentary on the 2008 financial collapse that opens today in New York and Los Angeles.

The documentary first made a blip on my radar when it premiered at Cannes back in May.  There it was the best reviewed movie of the festival, receiving nothing but the highest of praise from all angles.  According to IndieWIRE, “Inside Job” was the only movie at Cannes to score an A average.  Sony Pictures Classics picked it up there in France and played it at the Toronto and Telluride Film Festivals last month and the New York Film Festival last week.

The movie makes the argument that Wall Street has been heading for collapse ever since the 1980s when institutions were allowed to trade on their own behalf.  The idea that banks and firms are betting against the customers is frightening, and the marketing campaign behind the movie seeks to make it look like an “economic horror movie.”  It’s an interesting notion, and given some of the movie’s revelations, Sony Pictures Classics may be on to something.

The movie is more than just Ferguson’s hypotheses based on CNBC reports; he managed to get some high-profile figures on camera.  While there’s no Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke, he did manage to land former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and a high-end Wall Street prostitute.  These interviews make for an interesting aspect, according to Kris Tapley of In Contention:

With the brave subjects at apparent fault who somehow thought it was a good idea to go before Ferguson’s lens, the filmmaker takes on the role of interrogator, holding fast as they squirm and never allowing retreat (to the point that one subject, clearly flustered, asks that the camera be turned off for a moment). The thickness of the material and the dizzying nature of the underhanded tactics held up for examination pretty much becomes the point as the film moves on.

The movie is narrated by all-American boy Matt Damon, but it seems to me like Ferguson is the big character in the movie.  He has a stance, and he’s not afraid to put himself out there to make it known.  This isn’t just the facts; there is a slant.  The politics of “Inside Job” line up nicely with Academy politics, so the movie’s opinion certainly won’t work against it.

The real question is if “Inside Job” will align with the Academy’s flavor of the month in the documentary category.  Last year’s winner, “The Cove,” dealt with a very strong ethical cause that had not been anywhere in the news.  Two years ago, “Man on Wire” told the story of Philipe Petit’s 1973 walk between the World Trade Center towers.  Three years ago, Ferguson’s own Iraq documentary “No End in Sight” lost to “Taxi to the Dark Side,” which took a look at American policy on torture in Iraq.  Four years ago, winner “An Inconvenient Truth” made global warming an issue.  Five years ago, “March of the Penguin” charmed everyone in America.

Political hot-button issues may have a place on Fox News and CNN, but the Academy doesn’t always welcome them as we can see by their track record over the last five years.  With the economy being all over the news, do we need it again at the Oscars?

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Documentary Feature


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Hereafter”

5 10 2010

There was once a time when a Clint Eastwood movie being released meant instant Oscar attention and presumed to have nearly automatic entry into the Best Picture category.  Wait, that was just in 2008.  After picking up his second Best Picture/Best Director combo package for “Million Dollar Baby” in 2004 and nominations for “Letters from Iwo Jima” in 2006, the Academy has been cold as ice to the 80-year-old legendary filmmaker.

Is it a sort of backlash to Eastwood?  Have they simply had enough of him?  Or have his last three movies just really not been that good?

I personally don’t think he will ever win again, simply because twice is nice – and enough.  However, he can still have some horses in the race; they just aren’t in it for the win.  If Clint Eastwood directs one of the ten best movies of the year, they can’t be denied a spot simply by virtue of being directed by Eastwood.

So where does that put us with “Hereafter?”  We’ve hit the pedigree, which is kind of a toss-up as to whether it will hurt or help come awards season.  As of now, all we have to work with is critical reaction and looking at how the Academy has reacted historically to similar movies.

Eastwood’s latest directorial venture debuted last month at the Toronto Film Festival to a very polarized reaction.  Some critics seemed to really like it.  Roger Ebert went to bat in a big way for the movie:

“Clint Eastwood’s ‘Hereafter’ considers the possibility of an afterlife with tenderness, beauty and a gentle tact. I was surprised how enthralling I found it. I don’t believe in woo-woo, but there’s no woo-woo anywhere to be seen. It doesn’t even properly suppose an afterlife, but only the possibility of consciousness after apparent death … it is made with the reserve, the reluctance to take obvious emotional shortcuts, that is a hallmark of Eastwood as a filmmaker. This is the film of a man at peace. He has nothing to prove except his care for the story.”

Other critics, however, were not impressed.  Many called it the worst movie Eastwood has ever directed.  Some used words like uneven” while others just went straight to “trash.”  But according to Kris Tapley of In Contention, this may not be entirely bad.

“… even among the appreciators, Peter Morgan’s script may come together in a rather unsatisfying manner in the third act.  But words like “facile,” “cliche” and “manipulative” describe many, many former Oscar nominees and winners, so we should keep an eye on it.  To be perfectly honest, it sounds like a contender now more than ever.”

As I have said many times before, critical tastes do not determine Best Picture.  They didn’t love “The Blind Side,” and it still got in.  They didn’t lavish praise on “The Reader,” and it still got in.  While critics can shape Academy taste, they do not define it.  The Academy is not a group of critics; it is a group of filmmakers.  The fact that it has gotten a polarizing reaction thus far is not necessarily bad.  Several of last year’s Best Picture nominees had their fair share of detractors, such as “Avatar,” “Inglourious Basterds,” and even “Precious.”

And while on the subject of Academy tastes, speaking to the dead is a concept that they have readily embraced in the past.  Both “Ghost” and “The Sixth Sense” received Best Picture nominations.  But according to Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly, “Hereafter” reminds him more of “Babel” because of the movie’s three inter-connecting storylines.  “Babel” received nominations for Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay in 2006.  I could see Eastwood’s latest taking a similar trajectory.  I’m not expecting it to win (Eastwood has already won here twice), but it would be a nice inclusion on the shortlist.

Beyond the movie itself, I think Matt Damon can also be seriously considered in the Best Actor category.  He received his first acting nomination last year for “Invictus,” a collaboration with Eastwood, and he also has a nice Oscar sitting on his mantle for writing “Good Will Hunting.”  But with Damon also being an apparent scene-stealer in the much more Academy friendly “True Grit,” Warner Bros. may choose to campaign him harder there.

He stands a better chance in Best Supporting Actor, which has yet to be formed, than in Best Actor, which many people have narrowed down to Firth, Franco, Eisenberg, Duvall, and Bridges with Wahlberg and Gosling as strong outside shots.

There’s also a chance that Peter Morgan’s original script could make it in the field since he has been nominated before.  I don’t think much else from the movie has much of a shot, even the visual effects which make a tsunami look pretty good.

To close, I want to quote the wonderful review by Sasha Stone of Awards Daily.  While she was not a huge fan of the movie, she still states that it is one of Eastwood’s best and puts it all into perspective quite nicely.

“In his later years, he is ruminating on bigger questions, like what it means to be alive, to be killed, to be loved – to die, and to mourn … ‘Hereafter’ fits in to a triptych of films that meditate on childhood and loss: Mystic River, Changeling and now, ‘Hereafter’ … it isn’t the flavor of the month, but it is quintessentially Eastwood … at 80 years old, Eastwood remains a visionary.”

Since the idea of death is something especially pertinent to someone at the end of his life like Eastwood is, perhaps the emotional impact on the voters will prompt them to show some gratitude to a man who has been an outstanding contributor to the cinematic way.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Director, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

REVIEW: Green Zone

30 06 2010

Let’s just clear up the misconceptions from the get-go: I won’t be reviewing “Green Zone” as if it were the fourth installment of the Bourne series. Just because it’s a reunion of Matt Damon with director Paul Greengrass does not mean that they are going to keep making shades of the same movie. Assuming so would mean that you see no difference between “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” – both were directed by Martin Scorsese and starred Robert DeNiro.

The only similarity you might see between Damon and Greengrass’ latest collaboration and the Bourne trilogy is the shaky camera action. Directors usually shoot their movies in a similar style save that it fits, so there’s really no grounds for a comparison. Unless, of course, you like to relate potentially nauseating experiences.

Call it “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” for the Iraq Era, if you must find some movie to compare it to. Instead of having its heart rooted in the wholesome simplicity of small-town values, though, “Green Zone” is rooted in CNN cynicism. Damon’s Roy Miller is a captain leading the unit searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) who sees his duties as very black and white. Either the WMDs are at the site or they aren’t. But he is operating in a decidedly gray moral atmosphere, where war wages between the CIA and the Pentagon once the Iraqis are defeated.

The debate rages on how to incorporate the native people into the new regime in post-“Mission Accomplished” Iraq, yet Miller can’t stop thinking about the past. Questioning American motives at a time when the country is still trying to justify their invasion doesn’t make Miller very popular, and he is forced to wander slightly outside his boundaries to get the answers he wants. He doesn’t so much as go Sarah Palin-style rogue as he tracks down the truth, but he’s hunted as such.

Or maybe you should call it the anti-“The Kingdom,” Peter Berg’s 2007 film that presented a fictionalized version of the Riyadh compound bombing in Saudi Arabia. As Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman work to hunt down the terrorists who took innocent lives, you can’t help but feel a surge of confidence that our country is doing whatever is necessary to prevent the monstrosities of 9/11 from ever happening again. Unlike “The Kingdom,” we are meant to feel ashamed of our country in “Green Zone” for doing what it thought was the right thing, even if it might not have been for all the right reasons. All politics aside, it never feels good to be ashamed of your country. B- /


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #327

20 06 2010

Well, it’s another one of those memes.  I do this much less begrudgingly than the first time I tried one (for those who don’t remember, I was greeted with a chorus of “diva” and disapproving comments).

First of all, I’m certainly honored to be doing this meme after being cited by not just one but two blogs.  And these are two FANTASTIC blogs.  If you haven’t checked these sites out, you need to do that now.  In fact, I’ll even include screenshots of their sites that will take you straight to these amazing blogs.

Kaiderman’s The List is a ridiculously funny and entertaining site, always offering up some sort of fresh and imaginative lists that spark my own creativity.  This is usually the first site I visit when I’m struggling for factoid material.

Ryan/Univarn’s A Life in Equinox is a site that I have just recently discovered thanks to the LAMMYs.  His site is a deserving Best Blog nominee, brimming with insightfulness and packed with lots of recurring features.  And if you don’t mind, I think I may have to model my upcoming “About Me” page after yours.

This is the nifty little patch I’m supposed to display in the post.  Some graphic designer did a pretty nice job here.

Univarn got to define versatile already, so I guess I’ll do my own variation.  I went and looked up all the times I have used the word versatile on “Marshall and the Movies.”  It appears I have used it only three times, and they all have one thing in common: Matt Damon.

In my review of “Invictus,” I wrote, “2009 has reminded us that Damon is one of the most versatile working actors, constantly working to improve his craft.”

In a preview of “Green Zone,” I wrote, “‘Green Zone’ reunites the versatile Matt Damon … with Paul Greengrass.”

In my review of “The Informant,” a movie starring Matt Damon, I wrote, “Soderbergh, ever the versatile filmmaker, takes a fairly conventional tale of corporate crime and satirizes the genre.”

So, Kaiderman and Univarn, if you are suggesting that I share some sort of mythical tie of versatility with Matt Damon, I sure hope you are right!

Much like I did for the last meme, I’m going to give the 7 facts about myself by linking to past random factoids.  Really, each random factoid is a fact about myself.  But this one is going to be slightly different that the last meme (which was Random Factoid #265, for all those wondering) in that I will be giving a slight description along with each link.

Oh, and I have two themes working.  The first is to show that I could possibly be a fraction as awesome as Matt Damon, and the second is a bit of a “Friends” motif in the presentation.

The One Where Marshall Whips Out An Amazing Memory (originally published as Random Factoid #35)

The One Where Marshall Impersonates Julia Child (originally published as Random Factoid #97)

The One Where Marshall Recognizes An Amazing Tune (originally published as Random Factoid #207)

The One Where Marshall Schools The Experts (originally published as Random Factoid #224)

The One Where Marshall Defeats 3D Headaches (originally published as Random Factoid #237)

The One Where Marshall Does Crossword Puzzles In Pen (originally published as Random Factoid #280)

The One Where Marshall Wins A Prize (originally published as Random Factoid #323)


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

2009: Best Supporting Actor

3 03 2010

My celebration of this year’s Academy Award-nominated performances continues with a look at the Best Supporting Actor category.

It’s an interesting mix, but I’ll try not to treat them as numbers or as candidates.  They are actors, and they give performances.  The Oscars become a political race, but I think it’s time to relax and remember 2009 simply as it was: a great year at the theater.

Matt Damon in “Invictus”

IN MY OWN WORDS: “The urgency with which [Damon] sets out to transform rugby into something more than just a game for his team is played with an ardent and admirable intensity.”

He’s here because … he had a great year, playing two completely different characters, and he is a well-liked and popular actor.

Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”

He’s here because … he is a character actor who has gone too long unnoticed and under appreciated, and it is time for his moment in the sun.

Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”

He’s here because … he is a fantastic aging actor who had never been nominated before this year, and it was time to correct the crime.

Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”

He’s here because … he’s a well-liked actor who showed his versatility this year, and he has sympathy after the sad loss of his wife to cancer earlier this year.

Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

IN MY OWN WORDS: “[Waltz] makes Landa very eerie, nearing the level of Javier Bardem in ‘No Country for Old Men,’ but he is also quite likeable and somewhat charming despite the atrocious deeds he commits.”

He’s here because … he is absolutely spellbinding and commanded the screen every time he graced it.

Marshall’s “Oscars”

It’s a little tough for me to gauge how well the Academy did with this category because at this moment, I have only seen two of the five nominated performances.  However, the two that I did see (Waltz and Damon) both made my list.

As for the other three, it’s a bit of an eccentric collection.  First, I would like to honor the snubbed Alfred Molina for his role as Jenny’s father in “An Education.”  Last year, I spoke on my strong support for his performance:

“Among the ensemble, the real standout is Alfred Molina as Jenny’s father.  Despite being a stern authoritarian when it comes to educational matters, Molina brings an all-encompassing charm that lets us know that he cares for her greatly (but with the values of a fading generation).  His presence lends a warm feel to the movie that blends well with all the other pleasant sentiments the movie radiates.”

Another actor who made my list is not a conventional Academy pick (and thus he finds a home here): Alec Baldwin for “It’s Complicated.”  Other than perhaps “The Hangover” guys, I can’t think of any one actor who made me bust a gut so hard in 2009.  In my review, I raved of Baldwin:

“The real comedic spirit of the film comes from Alec Baldwin, who plays the overbearing fun-lover with such energy that he steals the screen every time he appears on it.  Motivated by little other than carnal desires, [his character’s] every move is fairly anticipated, but Baldwin’s zeal and verve prevent them ensure that they are always hysterical.”

For my final nominee, I debated including Paul Schneider for his role as poet John Keats’ friend in “Bright Star” as well as Stephen Lang for his muscling role as tough-as-nails marine in “Avatar.”  But after some thought, I decided that the spot deservingly goes to Nicholas Hoult for playing an overly interested student in “A Single Man.”  At first, I found myself quite annoyed by the character.  But as soon as I got over that, I discovered that a great performance lay underneath:

“The real acting standout is the young Nicholas Hoult as George’s overly inquisitive pupil, Kenny.  The script only feeds him obsequiously sexually inviting lines, and it’s hard to overcome that.  But Hoult understands the nature of his character and allows him to progress from somewhat creepy to somewhat of a guardian angel for George (look no further than his giant white sweater).”

So, at Marshall’s Oscars, the nominees would have been…

Alec Baldwin, “It’s Complicated”
Matt Damon, “Invictus”
Nicholas Hoult, “A Single Man”
Alfred Molina, “An Education”
Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”

Predictions:

Should win: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”
Could win: Christopher Plummer, “The Last Station”
Will win: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”

The only way Waltz loses here is if the voters feel like they need to give Plummer a “career achievement” Oscar. But even that doesn’t seem likely after Waltz’s steamrolling through this season.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : 2009 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

What To Look Forward To in … March 2010

12 02 2010

There’s more to March than just the Oscars.  Finally, March arrives and we can stop dwelling on 2009.  In my opinion, March is usually a pretty decent movie month.  This year’s crop looks especially promising with new movies from Tim Burton, Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Ultimatum”), and Noah Baumbach (“The Squid and the Whale”).

March 5

After almost 3 months, “Avatar” will have to cede those illustrious 3-D and IMAX screens to Tim Burton’s twist on “Alice in Wonderland.”  The titular character is played by relative newcomer Mia Wasikowsa, who will look quite a bit older than the Alice you remember from Disney’s 1951 animated classic.  If that’s not a big enough draw for you, surely Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter (who will hopefully channel more of his glorious Jack Sparrow than his Jacko-esque Willy Wonka) will suffice.  No?  How about Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen of Hearts?  Or Anne Hathaway as the White Queen?  Perhaps Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar?  No doubt about it, this is one exciting cast, and I’m sure Tim Burton won’t have any problem distinguishing himself from the numerous “Alice in Wonderland” rip-offs that have sprouted over the past few years.

“Brooklyn’s Finest” is directed by Antoine Fuqua, helmer of “Training Day,” which was enough to get me interested.  However, it really looks to be little more than a mash-up of every cop movie ever made.  But hey, that may be your thing, which would make this your potpourri.

March 12

I’m excited for “Green Zone,” which looks to be a smart political thriller. See my previous post at the release of the trailer for more info.

On the indie side of things, Noah Baumbach looks to return to Oscar form after “Margot at the Wedding” underwhelmed with “Greenberg.”  The movie stars Ben Stiller as Greenberg, the grouchy misanthrope who finds a reason to be pessimistic about everything.  However, a special woman comes along and begins to melt his heart.  I’m looking forward to a double-edged performance from Stiller, one that can show off his dramatic chops but also give us plenty of hearty laughs.

Seth Rogen’s four roommates in “Knocked Up” were equally as funny as he was. Each of them have slowly gotten their “moment”: Jonah Hill in “Superbad,” Jason Segel in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” Now, it could be Jay Baruchel’s turn. “She’s Out of My League” pits him similar situation: the uncomely guy getting the smoking hot babe. Hopefully Paramount gives this the push it deserves, maybe making Baruchel a breakout comedic star of 2010.

Could “Remember Me” get Robert Pattinson the Razzie for Worst Actor? After narrowly missing the cut for his two performances as Edward Cullen, this could finally be the one to get him the kind of awards attention he deserves.

Forest Whitaker is an Academy Award winning actor. What on earth is he doing in “Our Family Wedding?” For that matter, America Ferrera has won SAG and Golden Globe awards, and Carlos Mencia was once actually funny! This looks not only insufferable but almost racist. Plus, didn’t I see this movie in 2005 when it was called “Guess Who?”

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : What To Look Forward To

Random Factoid #180

24 01 2010

In school, it takes me forever to read Spanish literature.

In Argentina, I read a four page article about Matt Damon and the making of “Invictus” in less than 15 minutes.

It’s amazing how easy it is to read something you are interested in.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: Invictus

10 01 2010

Now that the page has turned for the first decade of the new millennium, it can safely be said that Clint Eastwood was one of its definitive filmmakers. His final directorial venture of the era, “Invictus,” tops off a nearly immaculate resumé. While it doesn’t rank with “Mystic River” or “Changeling,” it is a moving portrait of a country caught at a very crucial stage in its history. Despite what the poster would have you believe, this is not a movie about Nelson Mandela, nor is it about the South African rugby team. It is about the triumph of virtue over hatred, and “Invictus” is a truly spirited and fascinating film because of this focus.

The film mostly follows Mandela (Morgan Freeman), starting from his first day as president of South Africa. He faced large racial divisions and dissent among his countrymen, and his decisions were crucial to bring the nation to unity. Rather than eradicate all vestiges of the hateful Apartheid era, he tries to use them as a rallying point, and this surprises and even alienates certain members of his staff. Included in this plan is the revitalization of the Springboks rugby team, the green and gold previously seen as an emblem of white supremacy, and the winning of the 1995 World Cup being held in South Africa. Mandela takes a particular interest in the team’s captain, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), a man who believes has the qualities necessary to lead a team to greatness. It’s an inspirational sports movie, so the math to get the final product isn’t hard. Despite the occasional narrative slowdown, Eastwood manages to keep us very absorbed in the story.

A large part of the movie is dedicated to the racial tension among Mandela’s security. Many detractors point this out as a flaw in the movie, but I found the subplot to be a very nice illustration of the themes Eastwood wished to highlight. The whites and the blacks in the detail initially butt heads, yet they find common ground in their desire to protect the man with the power to change the world. It is particularly rousing to see them playing rugby together towards the end of the movie, and little moments like these are what makes Eastwood’s value of the human spirit shine.

Morgan Freeman is remarkable as Mandela, and it is a performance that reminds us why he has such a revered status among actors. It’s tough to play someone who is as well-known as the ex-President, and he pulls it off with endearment. Freeman is always soft and gentle, but we never doubt that he means business. There is no stand-out powerhouse scene for him because Mandela kept his cool at all times, so it is only through slight but powerful shifts in tone that he communicates the feeling. Damon also projects his authority, although a little bit more sternly. No remnants are left of his blubber from the “The Informant!,” and we not only buy him as a rugby player but as a commanding presence on the field. The urgency with which he sets out to transform rugby into something more than just a game for his team is played with an ardent and admirable intensity. From corporate drone to triumphant athlete, 2009 has reminded us that Damon is one of the most versatile working actors, constantly working to improve his craft.

Eastwood handles the rugby fairly well, and he manages to make it compelling even though most Americans (including myself) had no idea what was happening. Although it may not be as exhilarating as watching a climactic football game, we see the significance of the game, which is what really matters. More importantly, we see the game as merely symbolic of the progress made by a country who sought to overcome hatred. “Invictus” is more than a history lesson, it is a depiction of two fine leaders using their example to brighten the future. A- /


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Oscar Moment: “Invictus”

10 11 2009

Every year, one movie looks so impressive on paper that it is a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the year that it is not only a slam dunk to be a nominee, but also the assume winner of Best Picture.  I think I speak for most pundits when I say that “Invictus” is that movie from 2009.  When you mix one of the Academy’s favorite directors, Clint Eastwood, with two highly respected actors, Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, not to mention a true inspirational story involving a beloved humanist, Nelson Mandela, it seems like simple math that these add up to Oscar gold.

But let’s look at the movies in a comparable position to “Invictus” from the past few years:

  • “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” was nominated for 13 Oscars, including Best Picture, Director, Actor, and Screenplay.  However, its three victories came only from its technical merit.
  • “Atonement” was nominated for 7 Oscars, including Best Picture and Screenplay, and those were a surprise due to a fair level of disappointment that met the film upon its release.  It ended up walking away with a statue for Best Score.
  • “Dreamgirls” was nominated for 8 Oscars in 6 categories (3 nominations came from Best Song), but the film surprisingly was omitted from many major categories including Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay.  It ended up with two awards, Best Supporting Actress for Jennifer Hudson and Best Sound Mixing.
  • “Munich” was able to ride its assumed esteem into nominations for Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay, but it did not cash in on any of its nominations.

The only real conclusion that can be drawn from those results is that having sky-high expectations can often yield unfavorable results.  If people expect something amazing, it is all the easier to underwhelm.  So the only question that remains is which awards season path “Invictus” will tread – the extremely disappointing “Dreamgirls,” the mildly rewarding “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” or perhaps it will even capitalize on its status and turn it into Oscar triumph.

It is hard to judge the film on its own merit, though, because no one has seen it.  However, if the trailer is any indication, we are really in for a treat.  “Invictus” seems to be one of those inspirational movies designed to make your heart melt, the type of movie that the Academy hadn’t rewarded in a while until last year when “Slumdog Millionaire” cleaned house.  If “Slumdog” has really ushered in a new era of feel-good, triumphant films taking home the big prizes, “Invictus” seems to be a logical successor.  But then again, I feel like bloggers like myself often create these “movements” much like some suspect English teachers of coming up with “themes.”  Maybe we over think it, and the choice of a body of voters is just based on what movie took their breath away that year.

To bring up the obligatory other face of the coin, Clint Eastwood perhaps isn’t quite as venerated by the Academy as many think.  Neither of his two works gained much attention; “Gran Torino” wound up with a goose egg in the nomination column, not even willing to acknowledge what could be the last time he steps in front of the camera.  The Academy rarely awards more than two Oscars to actors and directors, and maybe the voters think that Eastwood has gotten enough recognition from them.  On a different note, if people are looking for a fairly buoyant movie, they might find “Up in the Air” a more appealing choice.  Critics claim that it truly expresses the zeitgeist of these tough economic times, addressing our problems but infusing the gravity with a bit of levity.

While I could spend all day discussing the awards potential of “Invictus,” I will let the movie speak for itself on December 11.  Then I will be in a much better position to discourse.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : 2009 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

What To Look Forward To: “Green Zone”

4 11 2009

A scant five days after the best movies of 2009 are crowned at the Academy Awards, a movie will be released that could have been among those.  “Green Zone” was slated for release this year, but the decision was made to push it back to 2010.  This was probably for financial reasons as so many great movies get lost in the heap during the month of December, and this year has taught us that a movie can make a nice chunk of change in the early months of the year.

“Green Zone” reunites the versatile Matt Damon, who at the time of release could be fresh off an Oscar win or nomination for either “The Informant!” or “Invictus,” with Paul Greengrass, director of the final two installments of the Bourne trilogy.  But Greengrass is capable of making something other than an epic action movie; he was nominated for Best Director at the Academy awards in 2006 for his work on “United 93.”  Damon’s character Roy Miller is a U.S. Army officer in the volatile Green Zone region, the center of international presence in Baghdad, who discovers that the CIA is working directly in opposition to his efforts to remove terrorist leaders.  In order to do what he feels is the greater good, he goes rogue.  Featuring an ensemble cast including Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs, and Oscar nominees Greg Kinnear and Amy Ryan, “Green Zone” can hopefully provide awards-level entertainment in the fairly barren winter months.

However, the movie being set in Iraq could hamper the film’s receipts.  There has yet to be any bonanza made off a movie set in the Middle East, and only recently has their been a movie, “The Hurt Locker,” that has opened to widespread critical acclaim (although I loved “The Kingdom” … never have I felt so patriotic).  That movie focused more on characters and not on action, and if the same applies to “Green Zone,” it should do fine.  Universal put out two trailers for the movie this week.  The domestic trailer makes it look more like the “Bourne” movies with plenty of action, while the international trailer focuses more on the plot.  I embedded the international trailer here because if you have read this blog at all, you know my main concern is story.  A side note/quick pondering, does this mean that Universal thinks that Americans only want action and no plot?  Whatever the case may be for “Green Zone,” I’m sold.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : What To Look Forward To

REVIEW: The Informant!

8 10 2009

You’ve seen plenty of movies about corporate scandals, a few about whistleblowers, and maybe some about informants. But you have never seen one like “The Informant!” The pervasive quirks of director Steven Soderbergh’s latest outing spread all the way to its exclamation point-laden title. Even if it doesn’t make you bust a gut, something in the movie is bound to make you grin from ear to ear, be it Matt Damon’s zany performance or Marvin Hamlisch’s retro score teeming with horns and whistles. Much to my surprise, the movie succeeds not because of Damon’s adept acting skills but rather because of Soderbergh’s expert handling of the eccentric script. His willingness to delve into the depths of the mind of Mark Whitacre (Damon) is nothing short of sensational.

“The Informant!” dares to explore Whitacre, a high-ranking executive at Archer Daniels Midland.  While the company is under close scrutiny by the FBI, Whitacre tips off them to a completely unexpected goldmine – ADM is part of one of the biggest price fixing scheme in history.  He reveals this not out of some sense of moral rectitude but rather due to the coerciveness of his concerned wife.  The FBI instantly puts Whitacre to use, placing him undercover in the heat of the fire.  Under conditions that agents are trained for years to cope with, the FBI’s most improbable informant manages to collect hundreds of hours of evidence relating to the criminal activity.  While on the surface everything looked perfect, the stress was inflaming a certain affliction of Whitacre.  Despite his bumbling demeanor, he is a very cunning man who may be not just a great informant but a informed threat the FBI.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »